[Internal-cg] Contracting

Thu Apr 30 16:45:43 UTC 2015

My understanding of the consensus process is that one cannot simply object, one must have viable reasons to object. 
In my view, Kavouss has not advanced a single substantive reason for his resistance. 

I look forward to a meaningful explanation from Kavouss, something more than a joke about "international court of justice", something that takes account of the process concerns that have been voiced by Alissa, myself, others. I must insist that we do not have such an explanation yet, Kavouss, and it is your responsibility to provide one if you expect me to take your objections seriously. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:03 AM
> To: Kavouss Arasteh
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; internal-cg at ianacg.org
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Contracting
> 
> Hi Kavouss,
> 
> Your objection to issuing an ICG statement about
> contracts/agreements is noted.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> On Apr 30, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Kavouss Arasteh
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Alussa
> > It seems that
> > ICG becoming the I international  Court of Justice.
> > Wgat us the natter that we becoming of OCs
> > Pls clarify and  this time No Note to be issued until every body agreed
> > I an very disappointed by your previous action that the consensus
> > tules were breached openly Pls be careful and nit to do it again Best
> > regards Kavouss
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 29 Apr 2015, at 17:41, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Good statement. I support it as is.
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> ICG Statement on Contracts and Other Agreements
> >>>
> >>> As the development of the proposal for the IANA stewardship
> >>> transition proceeds, operational communities have begun
> discussions
> >>> with ICANN concerning contracts and other agreements called for
> in
> >>> their community transition proposals. The ICG expects -- as it has
> >>> from the very beginning of the transition process -- that all
> >>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, express their opinions
> >>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the
> >>> community processes. This includes opinions about the provisions,
> >>> principles, and mechanisms associated with contracts or other
> >>> agreements between the communities and the IANA functions
> operator.
> >>> Attempts to alter or deviate from the community consensus
> proposals
> >>> through private negotiations undermine the legitimacy of the
> >>> transition proposal development process. At a time when all of
> the
> >>> communities are focused on accountability, all parties have the
> same
> >>> obligation to carry out discussions in an open manner within
> >>> established community processes.
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The thread below as well as the following paragraph in Milton’s
> >>> memo raised a question for me:
> >>>>
> >>>> “... negotiations between CRISP and ICANN legal raise a very
> >>> important process issue. As ICG we have viewed ourselves as an
> >>> entity that receives consensus proposals from the operational
> >>> communities and does not try to alter them. Shouldn’t we expect
> the
> >>> same from ICANN? If ICANN legal is attempting to make major
> >>> alterations in the terms of the contractual rights exercised by an
> >>> operational community as part of the transition, isn’t it
> >>> interfering with the consensus proposal of the affected
> operational
> >>> community? There is also the fact that these negotiations are
> going
> >>> on behind the scenes and are not transparent to the whole
> involved community.”
> >>>>
> >>>> My understanding is that the IETF folks are encountering some of
> >>>> the
> >>> same things as CRISP. Do we think it would help if the ICG put out
> a
> >>> statement of some sort indicating that we continue to expect all
> >>> interested parties, including ICANN staff, to express their opinions
> >>> about the transition proposals openly and transparently within the
> >>> community processes? And that includes opinions about the
> >>> acceptability of principles and mechanisms associated with
> >>> contractual arrangements between the communities and the
> IANA
> >>> functions operator?
> >>>>
> >>>> Alissa
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:34 AM, Lynn St.Amour
> <Lynn at LStAmour.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Milton,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A big +1 to "Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up
> >>>>> process
> >>> and ICG has no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on
> >>> what it thinks NTIA wants.  NTIA’s criteria are public us and they
> >>> do _not_ include any thing about splitting the IANA functions."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lynn
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 10:15 AM, Milton L Mueller
> <mueller at syr.edu>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi, reading these notes, I see this from Keith:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “NTIA suggests that anything which threatens to split the IANA
> >>> functions would be difficult for them to accept ‐ so the idea that
> >>> Protocols, Numbers or Names would have independent right of
> contract
> >>> termination maybe troublesome to NTIA ?”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I was not there for the full context, of course, so I may be
> >>> misinterpreting, but on its face this is incorrect, in my opinion. I
> >>> would like to know from Keith when and where NTIA suggested
> this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let’s keep in mind that IETF already has the right to “split” or
> >>> terminate its MoU with ICANN and has had that right for 15 years
> >>> through various iterations of the IANA contract. CRISP has
> proposed
> >>> something similar.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let me also remind us that this is a bottom up process and ICG
> >>>>>> has
> >>> no business modifying or rejecting proposals based on what it
> thinks
> >>> NTIA wants. NTIA’s criteria are public us and they do _not_ include
> >>> any thing about splitting the IANA functions.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --MM
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On
> >>> Behalf Of Jennifer Chung
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:10 PM
> >>>>>> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG Call #15: Attendance list and
> Chat
> >>> Transcript
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Apologies, the attachment was missing to the last email.
> >>>>>> Attached
> >>> please find the chat transcript for ICG Call 15.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jennifer
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia]
> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:09 PM
> >>>>>> To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org'
> >>>>>> Subject: ICG Call #15: Attendance list and Chat Transcript
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dear All,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance
> >>>>>> roll
> >>> call (below) for Call 15.  Please let me know if you note any
> >>> discrepancies:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ICG Members
> >>>>>> Kavouss Arasteh (GAC)
> >>>>>> Paul Wilson (NRO)
> >>>>>> Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC)
> >>>>>> Keith Davidson (ccNSO)
> >>>>>> Alissa Cooper (IETF)
> >>>>>> Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC)
> >>>>>> Jari Arkko (IETF)
> >>>>>> Martin Boyle (ccNSO)
> >>>>>> Demi Getschko (ISOC)
> >>>>>> Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC)
> >>>>>> Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries)
> >>>>>> Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries)
> >>>>>> Lynn St. Amour (IAB)
> >>>>>> Michael Niebel (GAC)
> >>>>>> Narelle Clark (ISOC)
> >>>>>> Russ Housley (IAB)
> >>>>>> Russ Mundy (SSAC)
> >>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO)
> >>>>>> Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO)
> >>>>>> Alan Barrett (NRO)
> >>>>>> Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC)
> >>>>>> Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS)
> >>>>>> Mary Uduma (ccNSO)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Liaisons
> >>>>>> Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Apologies
> >>>>>> Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison)
> >>>>>> James Bladel (GNSO)
> >>>>>> Milton Mueller (GNSO)
> >>>>>> Hartmut Glaser (ASO)
> >>>>>> Manal Ismail (GAC)
> >>>>>> Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC)
> >>>>>> Patrik Fältström (SSAC)
> >>>>>> Thomas Schneider (GAC)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best Regards,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jennifer
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
> >>>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >>>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
> >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Internal-cg mailing list
> >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Internal-cg mailing list
> >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
> >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org